Katie Hopkins says UK has been “overrun in every way” by Muslims, “The time of crusades must come again” She says the UK is so overrun with Islam, UK citizens will soon be forced to flee. Saying their taxes are going to building new Mosques everywhere, “This is about a takeover” “We are already overrun, power sits with the Muslim religion, power sits with Muslim leaders” “We are overrun in every way, in every sense, demographically, all births, Muslim births, outnumber births to every and all other religion. This is no commentary on anyone’s religion. I’m just, this is just pure fact. Our mayors who are control funding in our capital cities are Muslim. Mosques are not churches. A mosque is being built at the outermost tippy-tippy most end of Scotland and at the furthermost reaches at the end of the other side of our tiny country. This is about a takeover.” “I believe there will come a time not too far from now when the British people, true British people, will have to make very difficult choices. Either they will flee eastwards to Eastern Europe with our much more stronger Christian neighbors, Poland, Hungary, those countries, or they will seek asylum, flee, try to come to America, or they will stand their ground. But certainly, the time of the Crusades will need to come again if we are to return” “And of course America understands because you have Minneapolis, because you have Dearborn, Michigan, and I see it all the time, these blue centers where they absolutely load it up with multiple occupancy.”
Katie Hopkins says UK has been "overrun in every way" by Muslims, “The time of crusades must come again"
She says the UK is so overrun with Islam, UK citizens will soon be forced to flee. Saying their taxes are going to building new Mosques everywhere, “This is about a takeover”… pic.twitter.com/wjzhnnDEU8
“When a man does not know what harbor he is making for, no wind is the right wind.” ~ Seneca the Younger. Lucius Annaeus Seneca(a.k.a. Seneca the Younger, 4 BC–65 AD)
This quote applies perfectly to those attempting to derive reality based on vague and uncertain theories about gas bubbles in ice and tree rings: ships’ captains attempting to coordinate the knee jerks of their disillusioned oarsmen so as to make headway rather than have their ship spinning in circles.
In long term ice core records where the statistical smoothing period is 1000 years or more, cross correlation studies leave no doubt that temperature change leads CO2 change, and not the reverse, although there is a long time lag between the two changes.
Based on ice core data, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents such as Pieter Tan manage to publish work including this below of a somewhat flat line of CO2 concentration around 280 ppm beginning from around 1000 years ago up to the pre-industrial era.
There are of course data such as the graph immediately above which contradict the hypothesis based on ice core samples that atmospheric CO2 concentration was stable prior to the industrial revolution. But this contradicts the narrative of orthodox climatology so it is rarely or never discussed.
The first graph above is nonsense and non-science. Yet the myth of a stable pre-industrial global CO2 concentration infamously lives on in climatology. It is not possible to compare or connect the data as shown above, that is to connect ice core CO2 data (which is sampled and measured in ppmv from wet samples) with NOAA Mauna Loa data (which is sampled and measured in micromoles of CO2 per mole of freeze dried air i.e. ppm.) Full stop.
The ice core laboratories have no records of the water vapor content of their samples and variability over a thousands years. The amount of water vapor (1% or usually more) directly affects the volumetric analysis (ppmv) of trace gases like CO2. The change in CO2 concentration due solely to change in water vapor content is more than the annual variation in CO2, as will be shown below.
The NOAA Global Monitoring Labs such as Mauna Loa freeze dry their air samples before measuring to remove all water vapor and water droplets. They also have no record of how much water was removed or the sample to sample variability in water content. Removing quantities of 1% to 4% of water vapor from the NOAA air samples results in a very large increase of CO2, that is a very large increase in micromoles of CO2 per mole of dried air. The total number of moles of all air molecules in the dried air sample (i.e., the denominator in micromoles of CO2 per mole of dried air) has been greatly reduced by removal of the moles of water vapor, with the result that the numerator of the ratio, which is micromoles of CO2, is greatly increased as a proportion of total moles in the sample. In 2020 NOAA Mauna Loa measured the difference between a wet air sample and a freeze dried air sample.
In practice, if Mauna Loa and the other NOAA labs used volumetric units like ppmv and did not remove the water from the air samples, then the variability in their data would be so large that accurate and precise routine net CO2 measurements would not be possible; the number of calibrations required would be impractical. This is but one reason the NOAA labs use a molar fraction measurement (micromoles of CO2 per mole of dry air, which is precisely ppm) instead of a volume measurement such as micrograms CO2 per liter of air (or ppmv), or moles of CO2 per liter of air (which is also ppmv); ppm and ppmv are not equivalent units and in this case cannot be converted with reasonable certainty.
Here is high school arithmetic and data from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory on Mauna Loa. No expensive computer models. No statistics. No estimates. No assumptions. Just data and arithmetic.
414 ppm is 414 molecules of CO2 and 999,586 other air molecules.
Measured average net CO2 in air for 2020 was 414.24 ppm.*
Measured average net CO2 in air for 2019 was 411.66 ppm.*
414.24 minus 411.66 = 2.58 ppm
Thus, increase in CO2 for 2020 was 2.58 ppm, that’s 0.000258% of air. The net CO2 increase due to all sources & sinks, human and natural, for year 2020 was 2.58 ppm or 0.000258%. (That’s 2.58 ppm divided by 1,000,000 ppm = 0.00000258. Multiplied by 100 = 0.000258%)
Thus, increase for 2020 in net human CO2 cannot exceed 2.58. And 2.58/414 = 0.0062 = 0.62%. The 2020 annual increase in total net CO2 due to sources was 0.62%. The human component of the annual increase did not exceed 0.62%.
So, 0.000258% of atmosphere is the maximum possible net human CO2 increase for 2020. That annual increase from 2019 to 2020 (i.e., 2.58 ppm), includes the increase in CO2 due to all CO2 sources, natural and human, minus all CO2 sinks, natural and human, for 2020. This trivial amount is what all the climate fear is about and what climate alarmist want the public to spend trillions of dollars each year to reduce. By the way, we do not know the net human CO2 increase for any year; it is not measured and probably cannot be measured with scientific accuracy and precision, but it is only estimated.
As mentioned, in 2020 NOAA Mauna Loa measured the difference the amount of gases in a wet air sample and in a freeze-dried air sample. (Shown in the table below from their website.) The dried air sample contained 413 ppm CO2 and the wet sample contained 400.6 ppm CO2. The dried air sample contained 12.4 ppm more CO2 than the wet sample. The annual average increase in CO2 for 2020 over 2019 was only 2.58 ppm. Thus, for this one sample at one single humidity condition the difference between a dry versus a wet air sample was 480% larger than the average annual increase in CO2 for that year. ((12.4 ppm/2.58 ppm)*100 = ~480%)
When there is such a large difference between wet and dry sample methods, and since the humidity records were not kept and are not available, then it is not practical but incompetent to adjust or calibrate ppm and ppmv, and not practical but incompetent to connect CO2 ppmv data from wet ice cores to ppm data from dried air samples at NOAA GML laboratories. In other words, the well-worn claim that CO2 has grown from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv to 420 ppm today is incorrect. As physics Professor Richard Feynman famously said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” This principle is the bedrock of the scientific method—reality trumps narrative every time. It is wrong to extrapolate a CO2 growth rate from an assumed pre-industrial CO2 level based on ice core measurements to today’s measured CO2 levels. The following graphic illustrates in another way the incorrect comparison.
In conclusion, climate alarmists not only have the cause-effect sequence reversed – that is, temperature change leads CO2 change, and not the reverse, but their method of connecting ice core measurements with NOAA measurement, well both are “wrong” as Feynman would say.
*Tans, P. CO2 annual means 1959 -2020. NOAA and Scripps. Global Monitoring Laboratory. File Creation: Fri Mar 5 08:40:06 2021. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Apparently, in order to be able to work in the UK, we will all be forced to adopt digital ID—the mandatory so-called BritCard. There is absolutely no public appetite for this, as the more than 2 million and rising (at the time of writing) signatures to the online petition to stop it demonstrates.
Of course, online petitions don’t make any difference to governments, but at least they illustrate to us that government propaganda, such as the IPSOS poll that alleges 57% of the UK public want digital ID, is garbage. Though given IPSOS enormous number of government contracts, including its contract to assist in the design of the BritCard, willingly fulfilling its propaganda role is understandable.
Iain Davis Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Proudly announcing mandatory digital ID at the Global Progress Action Summit, Keir Starmer said:
Let me spell that out. You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have Digital ID. It’s as simple as that.
This all sounds very “authoritarian,” but if we decide we are not going to adopt the BritCard, and if the UK government insists on enforcing it, the entire UK economy and the government will collapse. If government issued digital ID is “mandatory” to work in the UK, and millions, perhaps tens of millions, of people decide they are not going along with it, then that means mass unemployment, a vanishing government tax take, and economic destruction on a cataclysmic scale.
The government can be as tough as it likes, but if we tell it to do one there is sweet FA it can do about it. The government only has power while we comply, if we don’t it has absolutely none at all. It’s a paper tiger. We have all the power, we just have to realise it by not complying.
Clearly, there is no need for a UK digital ID. In a moment of stupidity, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, told the BBC that the national ID card would be the same as a national insurance number (NIN), insofar as you won’t be able to work without one. It didn’t occur to her that having a NIN is indeed a prerequisite for employment in the UK and, therefore, no one needs a government digital ID. Assuming, that is, the government’s claimed justification is remotely plausible. Which it isn’t
The government has exploited illegal immigration as an excuse to supposedly introduce digital ID:
[Digital ID] will [. . .] be required for right to work checks to stop those with no right to be in the country from finding work. This is to send a clear message that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to work, deterring people from making dangerous journeys.
There are few glaring problems with this ludicrous argument.
For a start, you can’t get a NIN if you are in the UK illegally. Those who employ people illegally couldn’t care less whether you have a NIN or not, just as they won’t care if a slave labourer has a BritCard or not. No “message” will be sent because those who come here illegally do so knowing it is illegal and the BritCard won’t make any difference to them either. Nor will trafficked illegal immigrants be deterred because they don’t have a choice and the traffickers show no signs of giving up on their multi-billion dollar industry which, in any event, digital ID will do nothing to hinder.
In addition, if they receive leave to remain, refugees and asylum seekers can secure a NIN for themselves and work here legally. So, all in all, the government’s argument for introducing digital ID is total codswallop.
It is obvious that tackling illegal migration has nothing to do with the UK governments alleged hope of foisting digital ID on us all. It is equally obvious that the restricting the right to work is not really the purpose of digital ID:
A new digital ID scheme will make it easier for people across the UK to use vital government services. The roll-out will in time make it easier to apply for government and private sector services, such as helping renters to quickly prove their identity to landlords, improving access to welfare and other benefits, and making it easier for parents to apply for free childcare.
So, “in time,” we will supposedly need digital ID to access services like child care, to receive “welfare and other benefits,” and to rent a home. But that’s not all. We will also need it to access “private sector services” such as those offered by banks. You’ll need your government approved digital ID to buy a home too, in time.
In short, a state issued digital ID gives the state total control over your life and, to a great extent, the economy.
Currently migrants given leave to stay, either permanently or temporarily, can use government issued biometric ID—digital identity that contains biological information—to “open a bank account.” Starmer’s biometric BritCard, and all digital ID, merely extends that government mandated “privilege” to the rest of us.
Starmer is a globalist member of numerous policy think tanks, including the Trilateral Commission. The policy to enforce digital ID on everyone has nothing to do with his government. That Policy emanated from globalist think tanks, like the Trilateral Commission, and was set by the United Nations as SDG 16.9 in 2016.
Starmer and the UK government are seemingly doing what they are told. But something doesn’t quite add up.
The global digital ID systems and networks that have been put into place, to date, do not require the issuance of any single biometric digital ID card or app. Rather, a smorgasbord of “vendor agnostic” digital ID products can be made “interoperable” and share data in a uniform machine readable format. If the SDG 16.9 plans for data interoperability proceed as envisaged, the data from your UK biometric digital ID driving licence—which you probably already possess—and your biometric digital ID passport, for instance, could be linked to all your purchases through your interoperable digital bank card.
The data from all these “vendor agnostic” digital ID products, because they each use interoperable machine readable data exchange formats, can then be hoovered up to the global digital ID database. At present, the World Bank’s ID4D looks like the most likely candidate. The UN’s World Bank has set the interoperability data standards that the digital ID database requires and has divided them into five categories:
Major standards to facilitate the technical quality and interoperability of the ID system related to: (1) biometrics, (2) cards, (3) 2D barcodes, (4) digital signatures, and (5) federation protocols.
For example, the Indian government’s Aadhaar unique digital ID card (or app) uses “the ISO/IEC 19794 Series and ISO/IEC 19785 for biometric data interchange formats.” These are approved World Bank ID4D interoperability standards. In this case, Indian’s biometric data can be exported in a “machine-readable format enabling ease of import into” the SDG 16.9 compliant global ID4D database.
In July 2022, the ID2020 Alliance—the group tasked with fulfilling SDG 16.9—appointed Clive Smith as its new executive director. Clive was the former Director of Global Operations at the United Nations Foundation Mobile Health Alliance. Speaking about his new role, Clive said:
ID2020 can play a pivotal role, helping ensure that the appropriately interoperable solutions – and related financial, legal, and regulatory guardrails – are in place, and become the foundation of digital ID in the decades ahead.
The interoperable digital infrastructure is the key to constructing our digital IDs from interlinked vendor agnostic digital ID products. In effect, our digital ID can be manufactured by the system, as we interact with it, without us having any one, designated digital ID app or card. That is the point of digital ID-linked product interoperability.
The UK government already has an SDG 16.9 compatible biometric digital ID platform called One Login. It is part of the Government Digital Service (GDS) and provides users with access to government services via their GOV.UK digital wallets. The system is hopelessly insecure and the risk of identity theft is high, but all digital ID systems are prone to criminal misuse, so there’s nothing unusual there.
In India R.S. Sharma, Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), decided to demonstrate that claims of digital ID security flaws were all “conspiracy theories.” He published his Aadhaar number on, what was then, Twitter to prove the system was secure. Within hours, hackers had released his mobile number(s), personal Gmail and Yahoo addresses, his home address, date of birth, frequent flyer number, private photographs and bank account details to which—for a laugh but making their point—they sent some small payments.
Nevertheless, the interoperable digital ID infrastructure that is being installed globally means there are no technological reasons to account for the UK government’s attempt to introduce an extremely unpopular single, government issued digital ID. Especially seeing as it already has a digital ID system (One Login) that uses existing ID, such as driving licenses, to essentially achieve the same thing that the BritCard is supposed to deliver.
Compounding this unfathomable government strategy, the British have a long history of objecting to government issued ID. To expect us to go along with it this time is nonsensical.
Government issued ID was introduced in the First World War and abolished by public demand in 1919. They were reintroduced shortly after the start of the Second World War and withdrawn in 1952, again due to public opposition. The Blair Labour government tried again in 2010 and, though it was cost and election defeat, rather than unpopularity, that saw that attempt fail, government issued ID was widely opposed nonetheless. The government knows such national ID projects are extremely unpopular and it must have anticipated a political backlash.
Not only that, Starmer’s government decided to formally announce another government issued ID at a time when its popularity has never been lower. Notably, leading voices in the UK Reform Party have already taken a stance against the BritCard, as have those in the Conservative Party. Nor does the announcement do anything to assuage Labour’s alleged concerns about the so-called “far-right” as its supposed leaders have also come out against the BritCard move.
There is no realistic prospect that the government is going to get people to adopt its ridiculous BritCards. From Starmer’s and the Labour government’s perspective, this looks like political suicide. What’s going on?
After its initial leaky debacle, the contract for the cyber security for the government’s One Login was given to the US multinational Accenture led by Julie Sweet who sits on the Board of Trustees for both the World Economic Forum and the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Accenture is partnered with Peter Thiel’s Palantir and Thiel sits on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group. Both Accenture and Palantir are strategic partners with Larry Elllison’s Oracle. Ellison, like Thiel, is currently highly influential within the US government. All three companies have close links to the intelligence agencies, but Palantir’s and Oracle’s are very close.
Palantir is deeply embedded within the UK government and its defence and health sector. Oracle is similarly central to the digital transformation of UK government and, as we have just discussed, so is Accenture. These US Tech giants, led by people close to the centre of global power, all want to see digital ID succeed in the UK and fully back UN SDG 16.9.
Ellison is known to be a close associate of former UK prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly the money-man behind the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). The TBI has been pushing for digital ID in the UK for years. But what is digital ID really about for think tanks and policy setting groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and the TBI?
It is all about using the harvested data to control our lives. Lest you have any doubt, in September 2024, Ellison told Oracle investors:
Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.
In February this year, the TBI published a blueprint for what it calls the UK’s National Data Library (NDL). The TBI wants the data from all corners of the society and the economy, all public and private services, all industry, all business and all of us, to be stored in one unified central database: the NDL.
However, in order for the NDL to work, the TBI noted:
Harmonised personal identifiers, using a consistent number to refer to the same entity in different places, should be introduced to improve interoperability. [. . .] None of this would be possible without efforts to improve the broader data infrastructure, including efforts around interoperability and digital identity. [. . .] This allows the NDL to focus on closing a critical gap by addressing the legal, operational and structural barriers that prevent effective data use. Interoperability and even linkage efforts, welcome as they are, do not guarantee access or usability.
Clearly, the TBI is acutely aware of the interoperability that lies at the heart of the global digital transformation. The One Login GDS system is prepped for the completion of the necessary digital infrastructure. Digital ID is the linchpin that sets the entire system in motion. Therefore, it is essential to the government and its partners—Palantir, Accenture, and Oracle, etc.,—that we can somehow be cajoled into accepting digital ID.
Starmer’s BritCard is not intended to convince us to adopt digital ID. Its announcement is spectacularly ill-timed, the arguments offered to justify it are absurd and there is no reason to think the British public will ever buy in to it.
It is not unreasonable to speculate that BritCard is a bait-and-switch psyop.
The BritCard has stimulated debate about digital ID. I’m sure Newsnight and Question Time will cover it. We can argue the pros and cons and consider if we want digital ID. Then we will either accept or reject the BritCard, imagining that it is the totality of digital ID, and the issue will be resolved. Which I think is the point of BritCard.
The most likely outcome is that as anger is stoked and resentment swells, the completely unnecessary BritCard will be flung out along with the Labour government: again.
The door will then be open for the political saviours, be they the Tories, Reform or whomever, to come to power promising never to subject us to any more of these idiotic government issued ID schemes.
However, to keep pace with the digital revolution, our digital infrastructure, our cards and licenses, will need to be upgraded to facilitate the necessary interoperability.
Voila! We will rejoice in our victory and accept digital ID without even knowing it.
Note that re-blogging Iain blog does not imply that I agree with other posts on his blog. I am re-blogging this to possibly prevent it disappearing. There is truth here, especially the bait and switch or false flag. Most of us already have a digital drivers license, a digital social security and health care card, digital tax ID numbers, etc. Big Brother’s control matrix is tightening around us.
It’s one of the biggest questions in modern pediatrics: Has the CDC ever studied the full 72-dose vaccine schedule given to children? The shocking answer, no, is now the basis of a federal lawsuit demanding that the agency finally do so.
Host Dr. Liz Mumper, IMA Senior Fellow and pediatrician, sits down with Rick Jaffe, Esq., the lead attorney representing two physician plaintiffs, Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Ken Stoller, who argue that the CDC has failed in its legal and scientific duty to ensure the safety of its own recommended schedule.
Whether you’re a parent, policymaker, or practitioner, this case raises questions that cut to the core of public health and parental rights.
**Registering once opts you in to the entire series. Reminder: Use the same link each week.
You can submit your questions live online to be answered at end of the presentation. Or, later submit any questions to: support@flccc.net
Thank you!
WAYS TO JOIN THIS WEBINAR
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android
Join via audio
Or, dial:
US: +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 720 707 2699 More International numbers
The recent work titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” by the Department of Energy-sponsored Climate Working Group including John Christy, Ph.D., Judith Curry, Ph.D., Steven Koonin, Ph.D., Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., Roy Spencer, Ph.D., has obviously stirred up the nest at National Science Foundation (NSF), a non-government organization founded around the time of Abraham Lincoln. The nest’s response is conveniently advertised by the New York Times (NYT). This is expected and can be ignored. There is no substantive criticism by the NSF. This NYT advertisement and NSF puff follows other pieces such as the American Meteorological Association piece. Their funding is being rightly challenged.
As the late Charlie Kirk famously repeated to his crowds, “Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.”
Almost everything written here in my blog, as well as at https://climatecite.com/ and https://henryslaw.org/ about CO2 also applies to CH4, N2O and other trace gases. CO2 and CH4 are just two of many trace gases in air and Henry’s Law applies to all of them. “Trace” gas is defined as less than 1%. CH4 is methane or natural gas. Henry’s Law applies to trace gases, and only the portion of the trace gas which is not reacted. Henry’s Law, Fick’s Law, Ideal Gas Law, le Chatelier’s principle, Law of Mass Action all apply.
CH4 concentration in air is much less than CO2. Thus the amount of warming that can be attributed to CH4 is much less than CO2. Only on a molecule-by-molecule comparison of CH4 and CO2 does methane contribute more “greenhouse” warming; that is a useless comparison since CH4 is so much less concentrated (far fewer molecules) than CO2 and that fact will remain the case in perpetuity as I will now explain, unless there is some huge astronomic or geotectonic event. In other words, the temporarily, relatively small perturbations in net atmospheric concentrations of trace gases like CO2, CH4, N2O which are caused by human emissions of those gases are statistically negligible within the overall net fluxes of those gases into and out of the atmosphere and are not subject to either positive or negative human interventions. Also, the effects of these trace gases are negligible in comparison to the much larger effects of water vapor, water droplets and clouds. NSF, UN IPCC etc ignore water vapor, water and clouds and the sun and combinations of these two by contrived arguments as will be explained here by examining in detail the arguments of orthodox climatology today.
We could probably find examples of very large natural CH4 emission and absorption events which have occurred historically and then analyze them identically to our analyses of CO2 in the “Pinatubo study” Bromley & Tamarkin 2022.
The key point is that the net amounts of these trace gases contributed by humans are statistically irrelevant and negligible with regard to the net flux of those gases into and out of the atmosphere and with regard to variations (i.e., derivatives with respect to time) in those net fluxes. Net flux is defined by Fick’s law. (Flux is not the same as flow or flow rate.) It follows and can be shown that the radiative emissions and warming due to human-contributed trace gases is statistically irrelevant and negligible. When trends over time have been examined by many scientists competent in statistics, then the statistical signal of the trend (also perturbations in the trend) due to the human-contributed gases cannot be distinguished from random noise signals among the variations in the much larger natural fluxes of the trace gases.
NSF, IPCC, etc disingenuously argue the case for human-caused global warming/climate change by artificially defining warming/climate change due to atmospheric water vapor, water and clouds as feedback rather than as a direct cause. At the same time, the trace gases CO2, CH4, N2O etc are considered direct causes of global warming/climate change and then by this creative hypothesis the warming created by these trace gases increases the warming effect of water vapor, etc. It is disingenuous because their unscientific method of ignoring the ‘elephant in the room’ and their political objective have always been to find examples (polar bears, ice melting, social justice, etc.) and attribute these as evidence of warming and climate change to humans without ever demonstrating a causal connection. And they know that. Rather than to objectively study all causes of warming and climate changes, theirs is a sin of omission. They do the same with the sun, absurdly demoting the sun to less than human-produced CO2 as a cause of warming and climate change. It is politics rather than science. They want grant dollars to flow.
We can expect NSF, IPCC, etc to ignore us and people like us as they always have because their arguments and publications are a source and often the major source of their funding and egos. If skeptics are mentioned at all (including people like Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Dick Lindzen, Will Happer, Clintel, and many others far more well know than us, it is via ad hominem attack and appeal to authority and consensus and other logical fallacies. Global warming proponents believe and have said that they own the science, believe being the key concept. It is a cult.
Now, with that lengthy introduction, I will describe first how trivial CH4 is and why from an orthodox prospective. Just keep in mind that the same study we did with CO2 and Mauna Loa data around the period of the Pinatubo eruption, as well as the two CO2 experiments that I have suggested which we can prepare and present to judges, juries and scientists can also be done for CH4, N2O and the other trace gases. The scientific principles are the same for all of the trace gases. As Clint Eastwood popularized talking to criminals, “Go ahead, makemyday“.
CH₄ (hereinafter CH4 for simplicity in typing) emitted from Earth’s surface—primarily from wetlands (soil and plants), livestock (animals), rice paddies, and natural gas/oil operations, with smaller contributions from humans and oceans—oxidizes in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor (H₂O). I would guess that less than 1 in 100,000 people realize that simple chemistry fact. This conversion from CH4 to CO2 occurs mainly via gas-phase reactions in the troposphere, driven by hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are abundant due to sunlight-driven photolysis of ozone and water vapor (detailed below). The process is gradual, with CH4’s atmospheric lifetime around 9–12 years, per IPCC AR6 (2021) and NASA data. Also another though smaller amount of the CH4 emission total is continuously converted to CO2 via a chlorine-catalyzed reaction immediately over seawater surface.
Dominant Reactions and Stoichiometry:
The primary but continuous reaction pathway from CH4 to CO2 is initiated by abstraction (pulling away) of a hydrogen atom by OH, followed by a chain of reactions producing CO₂. Here’s the simplified sequence (full mechanism involves intermediates like methylperoxy radicals, CH₃O₂, and formaldehyde, CH₂O, but the net stoichiometry is shown):
Initiation (rate-limiting step): CH₄ + OH → CH₃ + H₂O (This occurs ~80–90% of the time; the rest is minor attack by reaction with Cl atoms in marine boundary layers, 70% of Earth’s surface.)
Propagation and oxidation chain: CH₃ + O₂ → CH₃O₂ (methylperoxy radical) CH₃O₂ + NO → CH₃O + NO₂ CH₃O + O₂ → HO₂ + HCHO (formaldehyde) HCHO + OH → HCO + H₂O HCO + O₂ → HO₂ + CO CO + OH → CO₂ + H (which quickly forms H₂O via other steps)
Net stoichiometry: CH₄ + 2O₂ → CO₂ + 2H₂O (This balances: 1C, 4H, 4O on left; 1C, 4H, 4O on right. NOx radicals like NO catalyze the cycle without net consumption.) Other minor sinks include soil microbial uptake (10–30 Tg/yr) and stratospheric oxidation (5%), but tropospheric OH dominates, removing ~500–600 Tg CH₄/yr globally (per EDGAR v8.0 and NOAA data, 2023).
All of the above is standard atmospheric chemistry.
Despite massive CH4 emissions (~570 Tg/yr from sources like wetlands ~40%, agriculture ~40%, fossil fuels ~20%, per Global Carbon Project 2023), atmospheric CH₄ remains low at ~1.9 ppm (1,920 ppb as of 2024, per NOAA ESRL). This is due to efficient atmospheric oxidation by OH radicals as detailed above, which act as the “detergent” of the troposphere. OH concentration is ~10⁶–10⁷ molecules/cm³, sustained by UV photolysis: O₃ + hν → O(¹D) + O₂, then O(¹D) + H₂O → 2OH. [See footnote (1) below if needed for spectroscopy nomenclature e.g. O(¹D)] The extremely low and persistent concentration of CH4 is also due to Henry’s Law, but orthodox climatology sources are not likely to ever admit this point because it enables their arguments to be defeated.
According to orthodox climatology, CH4 emissions have risen ~150% since pre-industrial levels due to human activity, but the atmospheric OH sink (as explained above) scales with CH4 (negative feedback) and keeps steady-state CH4 levels low, or so goes their argument. Without this, CH4 would equilibrate at a much higher amount, per modeling in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2022). Again, this orthodox explanation ignores Henry’s Law and the established facts that:
(a) the Earth’s surface has warmed since the end of the Ice Age (~10,000 years ago) and the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850), and
b) those warming trends cause increased net atmospheric concentrations (i.e. net emissions minus net absorptions) of all trace gases by reducing solubility of those trace gases in all liquids.
Estimate of Infrared Light Absorbed by Atmospheric CH₄ :
Earth’s upwelling infrared (IR) flux at the surface is ~390 W/m² (blackbody at 288 K, per Trenberth et al., 2014 diagram, updated in 2023). Atmospheric CH4 absorbs primarily in the 7.7 µm ν₄ band (strong) and weaker 3.3 µm and 6.5 µm bands, overlapping with H₂O and CO₂ but distinct enough for ~20–30% of its total “forcing” by their models.
Total absorption by CH4: 0.5–0.6 W/m² instantaneous (direct radiative forcing, per Myhre et al., 2013, and IPCC AR6). This is ~0.13–0.15% of surface upwelling IR.
Derivation: CH4’s absorption cross-section integrates to ~10–15% of the 7–8 µm window flux (30–40 W/m² escaping to space without absorbers), scaled by mixing ratio (~1.9 ppm) and vertical profile (concentrated in troposphere). Line-by-line models (HITRAN database) confirm this for clear-sky conditions.
Residence Time of Absorbed Energy in a CH₄ Molecule:
A CH4 molecule absorbs an IR photon in ~10⁻¹⁰ to 10⁻⁹ s (inverse of Einstein A coefficient for vibrational bands, ~10⁸–10⁹ s⁻¹). It then undergoes intramolecular vibrational relaxation (IVR), redistributing energy to other modes in ~10⁻¹² to 10⁻¹¹ s, followed by collisional deactivation with air molecules (dominantly N₂ and O₂) in ~1–10 ns (10⁻⁹ to 10⁻⁸ s) at 1 atm pressure. Re-emission as a photon is negligible (<1%) due to rapid collisions; instead, energy thermalizes, randomly heating the local air parcel. Net “hold time” before effective re-radiation (by the warmed atmosphere) is thus ~10⁻⁹ s per molecule, per quantum chemistry simulations in Journal of Chemical Physics (2020) and HITRAN documentation.
Longwave emission at 288 K effective temperature (Trenberth et al., 2009/2014).
Insolation received at surface
1,450–1,460 (absorbed solar)
3,720%
100%
Total downward solar minus reflection/albedo ~0.3; TOA insolation is ~1,360 W/m² (NASA CERES, 2023).
CH4’s IR absorption is tiny compared to Earth surface’s total IR emission or to solar IR input (at higher frequency), but its potency as a greenhouse gas stems from spectral overlap in IR windows with water vapor and CO2, as mentioned, “trapping” heat efficiently on a per molecule basis (GWP 28–34 over 100 years). Proponents claim total greenhouse “trapping” is ~150–160 W/m², with CH4 contributing ~0.5 W/m² directly, i.e., CH4 contributing only 0.33% of the proponent’s orthodox claim of total greenhouse trapping. Despite their own data, climate alarmists insist people of the Earth should fear CH4/methane/natural gas as part of an existential climate crisis.
How do orthodox proponents claim “trapping” works?
At sea-level pressure (~1 atm, 10¹⁹ molecules/cm³), the mean free path for collisions is only ~0.06 µm (60 nm), but each molecule is isolated in a ~10 nm “space” (cubic root of 1/density), surrounded by ~99.999% empty volume. This doesn’t prevent rapid energy sharing; it’s the collisions that matter.
I will break down the concept of “thermalization” physically, step by step, in the context of a CH4 molecule absorbing IR and then interacting with N₂ or O₂.
What Happens Physically During Absorption and Deactivation:
Absorption: A CH₄ molecule absorbs an IR photon (e.g., in the 7.7 µm ν₄ bending mode), exciting a vibrational state. This adds 0.16 eV (2,500 K equivalent temperature) of energy to that bond, but the molecule as a whole remains translationally cool—it’s now “hot” internally with internal vibrations.
Intramolecular Redistribution (IVR): Within ~10⁻¹² s (picoseconds), the excess vibrational energy spreads across all 3N-6=9 vibrational modes of CH₄ via quantum mechanical coupling (anharmonicities in the potential energy surface). No collisions needed yet; this is like internal sloshing of waves or vibrations inside a molecule. The molecule’s average vibrational temperature rises, but it’s still isolated momentarily by empty space from other molecules.
Collisional Deactivation (Thermalization): Here’s where the major air gases N₂ and O₂ come in. The excited CH₄ molecule collides with a nearby N₂ or O₂ molecule (collision rate 10⁹ s⁻¹ at 1 atm, or every ~1 ns). During the brief contact (10⁻¹³ s, governed by Lennard-Jones potential), energy transfers via:
Vibrational-to-Translational (V-T) Coupling: Part of the vibrational energy converts to kinetic energy (translation) of the CH₄ and/or N₂. This is inelastic scattering—molecules bounce with slightly different speeds.
Resonant Energy Transfer (V-V): If energies match (e.g., CH₄’s ν₃ mode ~3,000 cm⁻¹ overlaps with N₂’s, but less so here), vibrations swap between molecules.
I will not cover “imperfect” (off axis) collisions which are the most common. I am presenting the best orthodox case here.
Outcome: The “hot” vibrational energy in CH4 is diluted into translational kinetic energy across the colliding pair of CH4 and an air molecule like N2 or O2. Per the equipartition theorem, this kinetic energy represents random, isotropic motion (heat, as opposed to radiation) statistically distributed over all translational and rotational degrees of freedom in the local gas parcel.
What “Thermalizes” Means Precisely:
In physical terms, “thermalization” is the irreversible conversion of a photon’s directed, coherent energy (vibrational excitation in one molecule) into random thermal motion of the gas molecules—specifically, increased translational kinetic energy that equilibrates to the local temperature via the ideal gas law (½mv² = 3/2 kT). [See footnote 2 re version of Ideal Gas Law] It’s not re-emission or radiative emission of a photon, instead:
The air parcel (thousands of molecules in a 1 µm³ otherwise empty volume) warms by a tiny fraction (10⁻⁶ K per absorption event) by collisions.
This heat diffuses via subsequent collisions, maintaining the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution.
Quantum mechanically, it’s described by Fermi’s Golden Rule for transition rates, with cross-sections 10⁻¹⁶ cm² for V-T processes (from molecular dynamics simulations, e.g., in J. Chem. Phys. 2018). In the sparse atmosphere (99.99% empty space around air molecules), collisions are frequent enough to quench radiative emission from the gas molecule before radiative decay (ms timescale). This thermalization process (i.e., collisions rather than radiative emissions) is why greenhouse gases like CH4 warm the atmosphere ever so slightly rather than just reflecting IR. That is, according to their AGW proponents’ arguments, energy gets trapped as thermalized heat delaying escape of that heat to space. If collisions were rarer (e.g., upper atmosphere), more re-emission would occur, cooling the parcel.
The high school science student might ask here why air temperature in the desert typically drops rapidly after sunset compared to the air temperature on a tropical island? After all the CO2 and other trace gases are about the same concentration day and night in desert or on oceanic island. But water vapor, water droplets and cloud prevalence are usually very different above deserts and oceanic islands, thus cooling at night by radiation from Earth’s surface are very different in deserts compared to oceanic islands. Is the NSF smarter than a high school student?
It is important to understand the definition of “forcing” in orthodox climatology. Radiative forcing (usually just called “forcing”) refers to the change in the balance of incoming versus outgoing radiation in Earth’s atmosphere-radiation system caused by a specific factor, such as a “greenhouse” gas like CH4. It’s measured in watts per square meter (W/m²) and quantifies how much that factor perturbs the planet’s energy budget—typically by “trapping” additional outgoing infrared (IR) radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This is a computer modelled algorithm supporting another computer modelled algorithm to support the orthodox argument (originally expressed by former NASA GISS administrator James Hanson if I recall) that water vapor, water drops and clouds in atmosphere do not directly cause warming but are instead feedback which has been forced by increases in “greenhouse” gases like CO2. This contrivance enables AGW proponents to eliminate water vapor, water droplets, clouds from the list of greenhouse gases, though they are the largest contributor by more than ten times. The trace “greenhouse gases” such as CO2, CH4, N2O by this contrivance are rendered statistically significant, the dominant variables. The water components are ignored. Thus human contributions to net greenhouse gases become statistically significant in their hypothesis, when in fact they are scientifically, statistically insignificant and indistinguishable from noise.
Instantaneous Forcing: The direct absorption of upwelling IR by the gas (e.g., CH4’s bands at 7.7 µm, etc.), without accounting for rapid atmospheric adjustments like temperature changes.
Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF): A more comprehensive metric that includes quick feedbacks, like stratospheric cooling, but still isolates the gas’s net impact.
Positive vs. Negative: Positive forcing (like from CH₄) warms the planet by reducing outgoing longwave radiation; it’s the driver behind concepts like global warming potential (GWP).
In the orthodox statement above: “20–30% of its forcing” means that the distinct portions of CH₄’s absorption spectrum (i.e., not overlapped by H₂O or CO₂) account for about a fifth to a third of CH₄’s total radiative forcing contribution (0.5 W/m² globally). The rest comes from overlapped regions, where CH₄ adds incrementally to the absorption already dominated by other gases. This is derived from line-by-line radiative transfer models (e.g., HITRAN database) used in IPCC assessments, ensuring we don’t double-count spectral saturation.
In orthodox climate science, “net warming” is quantified via a contrived concept called effective radiative forcing (ERF), the perturbation to Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy balance (in W/m²) that drives surface and atmospheric temperature changes. Positive ERF inevitably leads to net warming of the system (surface ~70–80%, atmosphere ~20–30%, per energy budget models like Trenberth et al., 2014). Climate is not measured or experienced at the top of the atmosphere!
Insolation: Natural variations (e.g., 11-year solar cycles) contribute negligible ERF (0.05 W/m² max since 1750). Baseline insolation (340 W/m² at TOA) enables the greenhouse effect but isn’t a “forcing” perturbation.
Water vapor: Not a forcing agent; it’s a feedback amplifying CO₂/CH₄ effects by ~50–100% (IPCC AR6). Included here as a natural amplifier.
CO₂ and CH₄ from all sources: Total atmospheric concentrations drive ERF, but natural emissions alone would maintain pre-industrial levels (no net change, ERF ≈ 0). The observed ERF is due to the full concentration, where human additions dominate the increase.
CO₂ and CH₄ from human sources: ERF from anthropogenic concentration increases (nearly 100% of current forcing for these gases).
ERF Breakdown (1750–2019, per IPCC AR6 Ch. 7)
Component
Best Estimate ERF (W/m²)
Notes
Insolation (natural solar variability)
+0.05
Small, cyclic; no long-term trend.
Water vapor (total, incl. stratospheric)
+0.00 (direct); +1.0–2.0 (feedback)
Natural baseline; human-induced via warming (not independent forcing).
CO₂ (total conc., all sources)
+2.16
Pre-industrial (natural): 280* ppm; current: 410 ppm; human added ~130 ppm (47% increase). *This is the orthodox pre-industrial value. Should be ppmv and should not be used to compare to modern Mauna Loa 410 ppm. Will cause large errors.
CH₄ (total conc., all sources)
+0.54
Pre-industrial: 0.73 ppm; current: 1.87 ppm; human ~60–70% of increase.
CO₂ + CH₄ human only
+2.34
Full anthropogenic ERF for these gases; ~86% of total GHG forcing.
The ratio of net warming is approximately 1.18:1 (or 118%). This reflects that:
Human CO₂/CH₄ account for ~85% of total GHG ERF.
Natural factors (insolation variability, water vapor feedback) contribute the remaining ~15% amplification.
If interpreting “all sources” as total system forcing (including feedbacks), the ratio rises to ~1.5:1, as water vapor doubles the direct GHG effect in equilibrium warming.
This above is the orthodox perturbation-based estimate; absolute natural fluxes (e.g., ~750 GtC/yr CO₂ cycle) balance without net warming, per carbon cycle analyses. Uncertainties: ±20% on individual ERFs, but ratio robust (high confidence, per IPCC AR6).
I hope you can see from this long explanation of the orthodoxy how proponents created an argument for their hypothesis by removing water vapor, water and clouds from the list of greenhouse gases (even though it is the dominant greenhouse gas). Thereby they have promoted the trace gases artificially into the position of the primary causes (in their minds, but falsely) of global warming/climate change. By removing water vapor, water drops, clouds they conveniently and hugely diminish the role of the sun’s insolation at the surface and the huge variability in insolation at the surface due to water vapor (humidity), clouds and rain.
Nevertheless, AGW proponents like NSF and UN IPCC fail empirical scientific experiments. Estimated trends of these trace gases which are produced by humans, (used extensively in their models, for example data from CDIAC/Oak Ridge Laboratories compiled of estimated CO2 emissions due to estimated fossil fuel use) are not correlated with the diligently measured trends of those same gases by NOAA GML labs such as Mauna Loa. This absence of correlation is shown in the works of Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Jamal Munshi, and others.
This is absolutely critical:
As we know, correlation does not prove that a causal relationship exists between two variables or trends. However, if a causal relationship is claimed to exist, as claimed by AGW proponents, then a positive correlation must exist between the two trends if the claim is true. This positive correlation does not exist in the observed empirical experimental data. Experiments override theory. As renowned physicist Feynman said (approximately), ‘if it does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.’ As far as I know, there are no exceptions to either examples of this logic. This is key to defeating the NSF arguments. The technical arguments above are for your understanding and probably will never be discussed. They would only be ignored by the NSF. It is this logic based on empirical evidence and the experiments they cannot ignore!
For avoidance of doubt about the general applicability of Henry’s Law to all trace unreacted gases, here is the page on the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the U.S. Department of Commerce (NIST) which details Henry’s Law applied to N2O (nitrous oxide) which is more rare in atmosphere than CH4 which is yet again more rare than CO2. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C10024972&Mask=10#Solubility
Henry’s Law, Fick’s Law, Ideal Gas law, etc. apply to all trace gases, not only CO2. Henry’s Law, Fick’s Law etc are not mysterious or unknown, they are used professionally by thousands of scientists in their daily routines, but these laws are generally ignored in orthodox climatology which is mostly computer modelling.
Footnotes:
Footnote: Explanation of Nomenclature in the Photolysis Reactions
Molecular spectroscopy nomenclature: specifically describing electronic states during photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. These reactions are key to producing hydroxyl radicals (OH), which oxidize CH₄ as discussed earlier. Breaking it down step by step, focusing on O(¹D) and the context.
A. The Reaction Sequence
First step: O₃ + hν → O(¹D) + O₂ This is the photolysis (UV light-driven dissociation) of ozone (O₃). Here, hν represents a photon of ultraviolet (UV) light with energy hν (Planck’s constant × frequency, typically ~300–310 nm wavelength for this branch).
Second step: O(¹D) + H₂O → 2OH The excited oxygen atom reacts with water vapor to form two OH radicals. This is a fast, exothermic reaction (~200 kJ/mol release).
Together, they form the core of the “OH production cycle” in the troposphere, initiated by solar UV.2. Breaking Down O(¹D)
O: This denotes a single oxygen atom (neutral, not O₂ or O₃). Oxygen atoms are transient intermediates in atmospheric chemistry.
(¹D): This is the spectroscopic symbol for the atom’s electronic state. It specifies the atom’s energy configuration:
Superscript 1: Indicates singlet multiplicity (2S+1 = 1, so S=0). This means the atom’s total electron spin is zero—all electrons are paired (no unpaired spins). Singlets are often “forbidden” or higher-energy states compared to triplets.
Subscript D: Refers to the orbital angular momentum quantum number L=2 (D for the D subshell in atomic physics, like d-orbitals). Combined with spin, it describes the total angular momentum J via the Russell-Saunders coupling scheme: J = L + S, but for light atoms like oxygen, we often just use ²S+1L_J (here, it’s ground-state derived but excited).
In simpler terms: O(¹D) is the first electronically excited state of the oxygen atom, 1.97 eV (190 kJ/mol) above the ground state O(³P). It’s highly reactive because the excitation puts an electron in a higher orbital, making it prone to insertion reactions (like with H₂O to break bonds and form OH).3. Why This Notation Matters Physically
Ground vs. Excited States: Oxygen’s ground state is O(³P) (triplet, S=1, L=1), which is lower energy and less reactive—it mostly recombines or reacts slowly. O(¹D) is produced specifically by UV photolysis of O₃ in the Hartley band (200–310 nm), where the energy splits O₃ into O₂ (ground state, ³Σ_g^-) + O(¹D).
Quantum Selection Rules: The transition to O(¹D) is allowed because the photon’s spin doesn’t flip electrons oddly. Once formed, O(¹D) has a short lifetime (~10⁻⁷ s in air) before quenching (colliding with N₂/O₂ to relax to O(³P)) or reacting.
Notation Conventions:
For atoms: ²S+1L (e.g., O(³P), O(¹D), O(¹S) for higher states).
For molecules: Similar but with Greek letters for L (Σ, Π, Δ) and +/− for reflection symmetry (e.g., O₂(³Σ_g^-)).
This follows the Hund’s coupling cases in quantum chemistry, standardized in databases like NIST Atomic Spectra.
B. Broader Context
In the atmosphere, only 10–20% of O₃ photolysis yields O(¹D) (the rest produces O(³P)); the rest quenches quickly, but enough reacts with H₂O (1–2% of air) to sustain [OH] ~10⁶ molecules/cm³ daytime. Rate constants: k(O(¹D)+H₂O) ~2×10⁻¹⁰ cm³/s (JPL/NASA kinetics, 2023). If it were O(³P), the reaction with H₂O wouldn’t occur efficiently. This nomenclature ensures precise tracking of energy levels in models like MCM (Master Chemical Mechanism). For deeper dives, see Herzberg’s Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure or HITRAN for transition data.
Footnote: Equivalent Forms of the Ideal Gas Law
The expression ½mv² = 3/2 kT is the kinetic theory derivation of the ideal gas law for translational motion in 3D—it equates the average kinetic energy per molecule (½mv², where m is molecular mass, v is root-mean-square speed) to 3/2 kT (3 degrees of freedom × ½kT each, with k = Boltzmann’s constant, T = temperature). This is microscopic and specific to monatomic gases, but it extends to polyatomics via equipartition.More Commonly Used Macroscopic Equivalents. The standard ideal gas law is the most familiar and ubiquitous form, used in engineering, meteorology, chemistry and thermodynamics. Here are its primary equivalents, all interconvertible:
PV = nRT (most common textbook/engineering form)
P: Pressure (e.g., Pa or atm)
V: Volume (e.g., m³ or L)
n: Moles of gas
R: Universal gas constant (8.314 J/mol·K)
T: Temperature (K) Usage: Predicts behavior for bulk gases, like air parcels in the atmosphere.
k: Boltzmann’s constant (1.381 × 10⁻²³ J/K) Usage: Bridges micro (your original equation) to macro; common in kinetic theory discussions.
P = ρ (kT / m) or P = ρ R_specific T (density-based, for fluids/gases)
ρ: Density (kg/m³)
R_specific: Specific gas constant (R / molar mass, e.g., 287 J/kg·K for dry air) Usage: Hydrostatics in atmospheres, e.g., pressure scale height H = R_specific T / g.
Quick Conversion ExampleFor 1 mole of ideal gas at 300 K and 1 atm:
From ½mv² = 3/2 kT → average KE = 3/2 RT = ~3.74 kJ/mol.
PV = nRT → V = (1 mol × 8.314 × 300) / 101325 Pa ≈ 0.0246 m³ (matches van der Waals corrections for real gases).
These are all equivalent under ideal assumptions (no interactions, point particles). For real atmospheric gases like N₂ and O₂, the kinetic form holds well at room T/P, but macroscopic PV=nRT is far more practical for calculations.
References in addition to those listed above in the text.
Grok AiX. September 19, 2025
Compilation of Henry’s law constants (version 5.0.0) for water as solvent By Rolf Sander, PhD. Air Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, P.O. Box 3060, 55020 Mainz, Germany. Published: 6 October 2023. http://www.henrys-law.org
Abstract: CO₂ flux shifts from absorption to emission as sea surface temperature (SST) rises, with a ~4% decrease in absorption per °C.
Objective: Quantify CO₂ and water vapor fluxes as a function of SST in a controlled ocean-like system.
Setup: Apparatus: A temperature-controlled seawater tank (e.g., 100 L) equipped with a gas analyzer (e.g., an Agilent GC/MS, or a LI-COR LI-850 for CO₂) and humidity sensor (e.g., Vaisala HMP60). Use a heat exchanger to vary water temperature (15°C to 30°C) and a fan to simulate wind-driven turbulence.
Procedure:
Fill the tank with seawater (salinity ~35 psu to represent typical ocean salinity) and equilibrate with ambient air (CO₂ ~420 ppm).
Measure initial CO₂ concentration in water (Cw) using titration or a pCO₂ sensor and atmospheric CO₂ (Ca).
Record CO₂ flux using the gas analyzer and water vapor flux via humidity changes over 30-minute intervals at each temperature.
Calculate kw using empirical models (e.g., Wanninkhof, 2014: kw = 0.251 * u² * (Sc / 660)^(-0.5), where u is wind speed and Sc is the Schmidt number, temperature-dependent). [The Schmidt number (Sc) is a dimensionless parameter in fluid dynamics and mass transfer, defined as the ratio of kinematic viscosity (ν) to mass diffusivity (D): Sc = ν / D It characterizes the relative thickness of the momentum boundary layer to the concentration boundary layer, indicating the relative rates of momentum and mass diffusion. Sc is temperature-dependent because both ν (via dynamic viscosity μ and density ρ) and D increase with temperature, typically causing Sc to decrease (e.g., for CO₂ in seawater, Sc ≈ 660 at 20°C but drops significantly at higher temperatures due to faster D growth, at least this I what I have read so far].
Data Analysis: • Plot CO₂ flux (FCO2) and water vapor flux vs. SST. (This is flux as in Fick’s Law not flow rate.) • Fit data to the flux equation and Clausius-Clapeyron relation to derive ∂F / ∂T. (Note partial derivatives.) • Estimate rate of change by correlating flux changes with dT / dt (e.g., 0.1°C/day).
Expected Results: • CO₂ flux shifts from absorption to emission as SST rises, with a ~4% decrease in absorption per °C. • Water vapor flux increases exponentially, roughly doubling from 15°C to 30°C. This experiment provides empirical data to validate theoretical models and quantify SST-driven changes in gas and vapor fluxes, relevant to climate modeling.
Sources:
Grok (xAI). (2025). Conversations with Grok [Large language model]. xAI. Retrieved September 8, 2025, from https://grok.com
Wanninkhof, R. (1992) Relationship between wind speed and gas exchange over the ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research:Oceans. 95(C5) pages 7373-7382. https://doi.org/10.1029/92JC00188
Wanninkhof, R. (2014) Relationship between wind speed and gas exchange (revisited). Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 119(5), pages 1851–1866. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2014.12.351
PS: See Bob Weber’s work. You may want to follow Bob relating especially to SST varying by surface area. bob@electricweather.com
PSS: In the experiment above, the biological content in the tank of natural seawater could also be varied by quantity, species, and growth state. Varying wind speed or currents in water also possible. In another variation, temperature change of the surface thin layer due to changes in CO2 partial pressure or concentration in the headspace could also be monitored.
PSSS: This thought experiment is not quite ready for prime time. I need to investigate regarding the need to temperature weight geographic surface areas (cells) by a method to be determined, as implied by the works of Bob Weber. For example, square miles per day of surface at 25 C versus square miles per day of surface at 26 C would have different net flux of CO2. Some literature suggests this area delta T is already compensated. It may be necessary to add to this experiment an IR pyrometer for precisely measuring the macroscopically thin surface skin T (vs. a bulk probe T which includes the well mixed layer below the thin layer surface). Insolation (e.g., via lamps) at low fan speeds can mimic, and fit ∂F/∂T. Maybe some form of a T⁴ term in the energy balance to compensate for insolation at the surface, like for Qnet → SST evolution analogous to thermodynamics. [Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the energy radiated by a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.] So far I do not see how a vertical temperature gradient across ocean thin layer compensates for either a horizontal or a earth curved gradient across surface geographical cells with regard to net flux of CO2 from/to the surface. If you have pertinent references, please comment of advise. Climate orthodoxy going back to Bert Bolin, the first head of IPCC, in his 1960’s era papers ignores surface area, and AI engines today continue his narrative, which led to his error that ocean does not have enough chemical capacity to absorb human-produced CO2 emissions. He concluded that human-produced CO2 emissions were causing the slope of the Keeling Curve. Fick’s Law defines net flux as dependent on surface area and well as gradient across a thickness of surface and the diffusion constant. We showed in Bromley & Tamarkin (2022) that ocean has demonstrated far more chemical capacity than needed to absorb and then re-emit human-produced-CO2 in addition to naturally produced CO2.
by Bill Melugin @BillMelugin. Bud’s comments down below.
September 11, 2025
BREAKING: Per multiple federal sources to @FoxNews , the suspect arrested in the grisly machete beheading of a motel manager in Dallas, TX yesterday is a Cuban illegal alien who was released into the US by the Biden admin in January despite having an active deportation order.
I’m told YORDANIS COBOS-MARTINEZ was released from ICE custody by the Biden admin on 1/13/2025, one week before Trump took office, due to “no significant likelihood of removal in the forseeable future”. The Biden admin didn’t believe they could enforce his deportation order and remove him because Cuba doesn’t cooperate, and they did not conduct third party country deportations the way the Trump administration does. (sending aliens to countries they aren’t nationals of).
Cobos-Martinez has a prior criminal history of:
False imprisonment in CA (unknown disposition)
Indecency with a child in Texas (dismissed)
Grand theft of vehicle in Florida (dismissed)
Carjacking & false imprisonment in CA (acquitted on carjacking, convicted of false imprisonment).
Disturbing surveillance video shows Cobos-Martinez allegedly kicking and picking up the victim’s severed head in the motel parking lot as it drips blood, before he places it into a dumpster. It reportedly all started with an argument with the motel manager, and the beheading took place in front of the victim’s wife and son.
Bud’s comment: Democrats (i.e. communists) as well as judges and prosecutors funded, promoted, and celebrated by Soros, Obama, Schumer, etc. are causing this problem. It cannot be dismissed as simple neglect. This is strategic disruption of the nation to foment revolution. Of course they all have rhetorical denials.
These radicals arranged a dangerous combination of radical Islamists, far left wing Democrats (communists), illegal aliens and gang members unhinged from their culture but also not loyal to America or even interested in assimilation with U.S. society, but rather they denounce it, and support massive release or non-prosecution of unstable persons and violent criminals, and active promotion of anti-social, emotionally and psychologically dis-functioning people such as several members of the Biden administration and child sex traffickers. And they arranged that criminals were seldom prosecuted and removed from society but instead their political opponents were prosecuted non-stop; meanwhile mainstream media, law firms and organizations such as Southern Poverty Law Center focused on the latter.
For example, George Soros has invested significantly in judicial reform initiatives in the United States, primarily through funding progressive prosecutors. Since 2016, he has donated sums exceeding $1 million to local district attorney campaigns via the Safety and Justice PAC, supporting criminal justice reform proponents. Over the past decade, Soros has spent at least $50 million to elect what critics describe as “social justice” prosecutors across the country, funding, directly and indirectly, to as many as 75 district attorneys who advocate for criminal justice “reform,” who collectively represent more than 70 million people. This funding, often channeled through political action committees like the Safety and Justice PAC and the Mississippi Justice and Public Safety PAC, has been instrumental in electing prosecutors who prioritize bail reform, decriminalization of low-level offenses, and alternatives to incarceration.
One prominent example includes approximately $1.7 million in funding for Larry Krasner’s successful campaign for district attorney in Philadelphia. Soros-backed prosecutors have implemented policies such as eliminating cash bail for certain offenses and reducing prosecution of misdemeanors and non-violent crimes. For example, John Chisholm in Milwaukee County released Darrell Brooks on $1,000 bail five days before Brooks drove through a Christmas parade, killing six people. Similarly, Kim Foxx in Chicago faced criticism for declining to prosecute various offenses, which some analysts link to a rise in homicides from an average of 501 annually before her tenure to 666 during her time in office.
Critics argue that these reforms have contributed to rising crime rates in cities where Soros-backed prosecutors hold office. Reports cite increases in violent crime, including a 26% rise in homicides in Orlando during Aramis Ayala’s tenure and a 40% increase in aggravated assaults in Arlington County after Parisa Dehghani-Tafti took office. In Baltimore, murders rose nearly 50% between 2015 and 2019 under Marilyn Mosby, another Soros-supported prosecutor. Other jurisdictions, including San Francisco under Chesa Boudin, saw significant increases in property crime, with some attributing the rise to policies that decriminalized shoplifting and reduced prosecution rates.
Supporters of these reforms, including Soros himself, argue that traditional criminal justice disproportionately harms marginalized communities and that reinvesting in mental health response, youth programs, and rehabilitation is more effective for long-term public safety. Soros contends that factors such as the pandemic’s mental health impact, reduced policing, and gun trafficking are more significant contributors to recent crime increases than prosecutorial policies.
However, a backlash has emerged, with several high-profile Soros-backed prosecutors being recalled, resigning, or choosing not to seek re-election amid public criticism and legal challenges. Examples include Chesa Boudin’s 2022 recall in San Francisco, Kim Gardner’s resignation in St. Louis, and Monique Worrell’s suspension by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. This shift suggests growing voter concern over the perceived consequences of progressive prosecutorial policies on public safety.
Similar examples can be produced for arguably treasonous activities by Barack Obama and his sycophants, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, John Brennan, etc. How many times did Soros and members of his organizations visit the Whitehouse during the Obama and Biden administrations? Did Soros or U.S. agencies fund or instigate riots such as those following George Floyd’s death, but also January 6th? There is an active effort to tear down society by violence, crime and chaos by Antifa, BLM and myriad other groups along with massive depletion of public resources. Radicals hope for exhaustion of patience and eventual resort to violence by conservatives, centrists, etc. This is an old plot used by White Russians, the Red Russians, then the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolutions, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians and other ethnic groups in Russia not during war time. Theoretically in the minds of these radicals, this would lead to revolution, destruction of capitalism, and elimination of national and personal sovereignty except as lip service, and finally domination by an elite who believe they know better, based on their various psychopathologies.
It appears to be a human characteristic that some cannot handle freedom, which is revealed by perpetually playing the victim.
A key part of this radical revolutionary strategy is often associated with two Columbia University professors, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, is known as the Cloward-Piven strategy. It was proposed in a May 1966 article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” published in left wing The Nation magazine. The strategy aimed to create a crisis in the U.S. welfare system by encouraging large numbers of eligible but unenrolled individuals to apply for welfare benefits simultaneously. In the Biden administration, this strategy was rapidly accelerated by opening U.S. borders to more than 15 million illegal aliens and providing illegal living benefits at taxpayer expense. And lawyers and judges block attempts to stop of reverse the invasion and misuse of resources. The resulting strain on government resources, according to the theory, would overwhelm the system and force the adoption of more radical, leftist social policies such as a guaranteed annual income.
Cloward and Piven, both sociology professors at Columbia University’s School of Social Work and married to each other, believed that systemic change could be achieved not through violent revolution but by leveraging the political power of the poor to create structural crisis and reform, essentially the reforms (or more precisely said the de-evolution of the U.S. Constitution) along the lines of Soros’s Open Society Foundation. They argued that mass mobilization of the poor could disrupt existing political and economic systems, leading to transformative policy shifts being demanded by the people in return for safety.
This strategy was linked to real-world organizing efforts, including the formation of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in the late 1960s, which sought to increase welfare enrollment and advocate for the rights of welfare recipients. During the Biden administration this was expanded to include USAID, United Nations, Red Cross, Catholic Church and myriad NGOs funded directly and indirectly by U.S. taxpayers and of course more federal debt. While the Cloward-Piven strategy was ostensibly intended as a means to achieve social justice and end poverty, it has since been used as a deliberate plan to destabilize government institutions.
“The plan was first put into practice in New York City in the late 1960s, where Cloward and Piven organized the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) to increase the number of people on welfare. The NWRO was successful in getting thousands of new people to apply for welfare benefits, which led to a budget crisis in New York City and forced the government to adopt more progressive policies.”
“Today, many conservatives believe that what is happening in America is a clear execution of the Cloward-Piven plan. They point to the Biden administration’s push for massive spending on welfare programs, such as the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, which includes a $300 weekly unemployment benefit on top of existing state benefits. They argue that this is just the first step in a larger plan to create a crisis in the welfare system and force the government to adopt even more radical policies.” ~https://politicrossing.com/the-two-little-known-columbia-professors-who-planned-the-collapse-of-america-in-1966/ or politicrossing.com
The existential crisis is not whether or not the earth is catastrophically warming, or whether or not climate change is reaching or past a tipping point. The existential crisis is that a large number of humans believe there is an existential crisis without sufficient evidence. This is hubris. A large number of humans are unable to think for themselves, though they may be called experts, professors and so forth.
Recall the trials in Salem Massachusetts and elsewhere globally when supposed witches were burned. Judges including my ancestors allowed “witches” to be burned.
The existential crisis is the de-evolution of humanity by satan.
In other words, the existential crisis is the loss of faith in God and his messenger Jesus, the Christ of Nazareth. This crisis is the work of satan and his followers.
This topic will be familiar to readers of my blog. Use the search bar for Malthus, eugenics, depopulation, ecoscience, etc. Population growth rate has been declining for decades. Report here by American Institute for Economic Research 3 September 2025 and introduce Rhoda Wilson at The Expose
Overpopulation myth: Propaganda is the reason for the sharp population declines facing most developed nations
The Earth is expected to reach “peak population” before the end of this century, with most developed nations facing sharp population declines and ageing populations.
The reason for this decline is attributed to the fear of overpopulation, which was perpetuated by thinkers like Paul Ehrlich and led to the implementation of draconian family planning measures, including coercive sterilisations and abortions.
Many countries, including Japan, South Korea and Italy, are already experiencing population decline, and the world population is expected to peak between 2060 and 2080, followed by a decline, with significant consequences for the global economy and society.
The world is not overpopulated, AEIR explains. If the entire world’s population moved to Texas, the population density would be a little more than New York, much less than Paris and dramatically less than Manila.
Earth is going to hit “peak population” before the end of this century. Within 25 years, most of the world’s developed nations will be facing sharp population declines, with shrinking pools of young people working to support an ever-ageing population.
The reason is not famine, war or pestilence. We did this to ourselves by creating a set of draconian solutions to a problem that didn’t even exist. Fear has always been the best tool for social control, and the fear of humanity was deployed by generations of “thinkers” on the control-obsessed left.
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate …
We may be able to keep famine from sweeping across India for a few more years. But India can’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980. Nothing can prevent the death of tens of millions of people in India in the 1970s[1] …
And England? If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.[2]
[Note from The Exposé: There have been many versions of ‘The Population Bomb’ published over the decades. We browsed through ‘The Population (Revised)’ (Rivercity Press, 1975), which is the version hyperlinked at the beginning of the quote, and we were unable to find the last two statements noted as [1] and [2]. This does not mean they are incorrect. For example, [2] is included by Wikiquote as a quote from Paul R. Ehrlich.]
The bullying of citizens by means of dreads and fights has been going on since paleolithic times. Greenpeace fundraisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than the tribal Wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. “Oh no, Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.”All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death, PJ O’Rourke, 1994, pg. 12
Family Planning and State Intervention
But there is more going on here than just gulling the gullible; the overpopulation hysteria of the 1960s and 1970s had world-changing consequences, effects that are just now becoming clear. It’s not fair (though it is fun) to blame Ehrlich; the truth is that the full-blown family-size freakout emerged from a pseudo-science that held growth was a threat to prosperity. Influential organisations were founded by very worried people. The Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation were both created early on, in 1952. Developing nations began promoting aggressive family planning initiatives, often with substantial support, and sometimes with coercive pressures, from Western governments and international agencies.
In more than a few cases, of course, the availability of contraception was actually a means of freeing women to make a choice to have fewer children. But combining this choice with state-sponsored coercion meant that even those who wanted more children, or would have wanted more children if the social pressures had been more sensibly used, were diverted from their private dream of several children.
That would be bad enough, if that were the end of the story. But it is only the beginning, because the sanctimony of scientism has created an actual population crisis, one that will affect the world for decades. Some nations may never recover, at least not in their present form. That crisis is the population bust.
Shrinking Planet: Which Nations Will Peak When?
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, using available data. What I was trying to calculate was the year of projected peak population for the 26 countries where the data are reliable enough to make an educated guess. That projection is based on Total Fertility Rates, and accounting for immigration, and mortality (life expectancy) trends. These estimates are, at best, approximations, because in some cases the data are not strictly comparable. But the data I do have are drawn from the United Nations World Population Prospects, OECD statistical reports, and national demographic data.
Peak population years are based on UN World Population Prospects (PDF) mid‑variant projections, supported by regional reports noting that most European and North American nations will peak in the late 2030s. Japan already peaked around 2008, South Korea around 2025, and Israel – with a total fertility rate (“TFR”) near 3.0 – may not peak this century.
As is noted in the final row of the table, the replacement rate for total fertility is about 2.10, given trends in life expectancy and assuming no net migration.
This raises a question: if all these countries have TFRs below replacement, what is actually happening to the world’s population? The answer is simple, though it has not been talked about much. The world population is going to peak and then start to decline. The total number of people on Earth will begin to fall sometime in the near future. The actual date of the peak is a matter of conjecture,since it depends on specific assumptions, but the estimates appear mostly to fall between 2060 (assuming current TFRs are constant) and 2080 (if TFRs increase slightly, and life span increases):
None of this needed to happen, folks. There is plenty of room on Earth, as you know if you have ever flown across Australia, Canada or, for that matter, the US at night – there is a lot of empty space.
Let’s do a thought experiment: there are 8.1 billion people on Earth now. Suppose all of them lived in the US state of Texas (for those Texans reading this, I know it seems like we are moving in that direction; the traffic in Dallas is remarkable!). Texas has an area of 676,600 square kilometres. So, supposing present trends continue and literally the whole world did move to Texas, what would that look like?
Well, 8.1 billion in 676,600 km² is about 12,000 people per square kilometre. That’s slightly more dense than the five boroughs of New York (about 11,300 per square kilometre), but much less than Paris (20,000) and dramatically less than Manila (nearly 44,000). Now, New York and Paris are pretty crowded, but people do live there, and even go there voluntarily to visit sometimes. Even if the entire current global population had to move into Texas, it’d be only marginally more annoying than Manhattan at rush hour.
So, here’s the takeaway: there was no good reason for the population hysteria of past decades. As I tried to argue in an earlier piece, those predictions were ridiculous even at the time. And we need not be concerned about reviving the “population bomb,” because there is plenty of room, even if the human population does start to grow again, and even if we all had to move to Texas.
The effects of population decline are already starting to be felt in countries such as South Korea and Japan. As the average age climbs, the absolute number of people under 40 starts to decline. Unless something changes, the world population in general, and many specific countries, will face circumstances that, until now, have only ever been observed during catastrophic plagues or savage wars: blocks of empty houses, abandoned cities and hordes of elderly people who lack the ability to provide for themselves. The difference in the present case, however, is that we are not suffering from famine or war. As Antony Davis pointed out, the current collapse of world civilisation is a consequence of a striking failure to recognise that human beings are the most valuable resource we have.
Some Notes on Sources
TFR data comes from OECD and UN: OECD average TFR was 1.5 in 2022
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.